Airlines rely upon flight manuals, procedural manuals, and other manuals in the operation of its aircraft. These manuals are continually being revised, modified and supplemented by the airlines to maintain current standards for operation of the aircraft. These manuals are carried on the aircraft in paper form and are quite extensive in size and weight. The various manuals that are used in operating aircraft can weigh 100 pounds or more. Every pound of materials carried by an aircraft increases fuel consumption and the cost to operate the aircraft. Airlines are constantly looking for ways to reduce their operating costs and therefore it is desirable to minimize the weight that must be carried by the aircraft.
In an effort to reduce the weight of these manuals, airlines are increasingly relying upon the use of these manuals in electronic format. The manuals are converted into computer applications that are modifiable by the airlines, hereinafter referred to as Airline Modifiable Software (AMS). The AMS must receive approval from the regulatory agencies that oversee aircraft operation, such as the Federal Aviation Administration. These regulatory agencies approve the AMS for use in lieu of the paper manuals. In order to utilize the AMS, a display is required that can be viewed by the flight crew at various times during the operation of the aircraft.
The flight deck on an aircraft has numerous certified flight deck displays upon which the AMS could potentially be displayed. However, the AMS applications are not certified and are therefore not currently allowed to be displayed on a certified flight deck display. As a possible solution, an aircraft manufacturer could install additional certified displays on the flight deck that are dedicated to displaying the AMS. However, space is extremely limited on the flight deck and certified displays are expensive to build and have certified. Additionally, certified displays have been shown to not be cost effective when limited to non-essential functions, such as the AMS.
Another potential problem with using an existing certified flight deck display to display the AMS is that the AMS applications must be prevented from affecting the safe operation of the aircraft. AMS applications are increasingly expected to be provided by sources that are not in or on the flight deck. For example, AMS applications can be provided by an airline-controlled server which is installed on the airplane. However, the airline-controlled server may at times (during flight crew access or not) be connected to off board networks. These networks are open and therefore susceptible to malicious interference by remote parties that may go undetected. Because these networks are open, there is a possibility that a remote party could maliciously interfere with the safe operation of the aircraft by interfering with the displaying of the AMS on the existing certified display. For example, the malicious remote party could design an application that emulates or spoofs the certified display and have that application appear on the certified display with incorrect data instead of the AMS. The flight crew would think that the certified display was displaying the information for which the display is certified and believe that the inaccurate data is true and subsequently affect the safe operation of the aircraft.
Therefore, to limit the possibility of malicious interference by remote parties airlines have relied upon the use of carry-on personal electronic devices (PEDs), such as laptop computers, to run the AMS applications. The PED's could avoid the possibility of malicious interference by remote parties if the PED's were never connected to open networks. However, most PED's are at sometime connected to open networks and, therefore, exposed to malicious interference which may not be detected. The use of PEDs are also not without substantial drawbacks. As stated above, space is limited on a flight deck and the PEDs can interfere with the operation of the flight deck controls, particularly the control column. Additionally, the PEDs could present a hazard during turbulence in that the PEDs may injure a member of the flight crew or damage equipment. Furthermore, PEDs cannot be used during some phases of flight during which it may be desirable to have the AMS applications displayed. Finally, some PEDs will not be bright enough for sunlit conditions nor dim enough for nighttime use to facilitate efficient and comfortable use by members of the flight crew.
Therefore, it would be advantageous to an airline if it could use a certified flight deck display to display the AMS applications while preventing or at least detecting malicious interference by remote parties.